>I agree with you. Doesn't matter who you are: the rules are the rules and when it comes to sensitive National material, there's no wiggle room. And if you're important/privileged then in a democracy you deserve less leniency as you ought to set an example.
>
> No idea why she would do this- though FWIW, I also see it in healthcare where some very smart people are lax with patient information. Perhaps the mind is so focused in the clouds that the feet in the muck are forgotten.


Somebody call Ripley, we agree :)

I am totally perplexed how she could have been this careless. At the very least, it was pure ego and arrogance. Her harshest critics continue to press on this "selling secrets", but there needs to be strong evidence to support such a claim, and all that exists right now is circumstantial evidence. Some of it is worth pursuing, but is still circumstantial.

In health care, given that the culture is nearly fanatical on privacy and security, it seems the smart people who get lax aren't so much forgetting it, as much as maybe it's pure ego. In other words, they might think they are so smart and so careful to begin with, that they don't need to follow restrictions that "get in their way".

You might know that there is no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons. So the question is whether an Obama-led DOJ will truly press on this and issue indictments. Remember, Hillary carried water for this administration several times, and she could very well go on the attack against the current administration (and anyone whom Obama would endorse in 2016, should Hillary's campaign continue to crumble) if the current administration indicts her.

There have been many comparisons to Petraeus. Petraeus was also a critic of the current administration and had political aspirations. Certainly, Petraeus broke the rules. The question is going to be whether Hillary receives preferential treatment.